In the matter of C (a child) - Care Order

1 [2026] IEDC 5 AN CHÚIRT DÚICHE THE DISTRICT COURT DUBLIN METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COURT THE CHILDCARE ACT 1991 SECTION 18 IN THE MATTER OF C (a child) THE CHILD AND FAMILY AGENCY Applicant -and- AA First Respondent -and- AB Second Respondent -and- AC Guardian ad Litem Decision of Judge Conor Fottrell delivered on the 11th day of March 2026 Introduction: 2 1. The application is brought under Section 18(1) of the Childcare Act 1991 (“the Act”) in respect of a two and half year-old child who has been in care since shortly after birth. 2. The applicant is the Child and Family Agency (“the Agency”), which is seeking a care order in respect of the child until such time as the child reaches the age of 18 years. 3. The respondents are the parents of the child. They are referred to as “AA” and “AB” and the child is referred to as “C”. The report of the decision has been anonymised to ensure the rights of both the child and the parents as litigants, in an in-camera hearing under the Act, are protected. In this way, the public interest in favour of publication can be satisfied without any identification of the mother, father and the child, in accordance with the requirements of the Act. 4. The respondent mother and father attended court and were legally represented by a solicitor and counsel for the duration of the care order hearing. The parents opposed the application and wanted the child placed in their care. 5. Both parents were supported by advocates during the care order hearing, and the Court would like to acknowledge and thank both advocates for their considerable help and support provided to the parents at the care order hearing and previous court attendances. 6. The child’s interests in the proceedings were represented by the court-appointed Guardian ad Litem, who was also represented by a solicitor. The Guardian ad Litem supported the Agency’s application for a care order for the child, until she attained 18 years of age. 7. The Section 18 application was heard over three days in January and February 2026, with the Court hearing from six witnesses. Both parents also gave evidence. In addition, the Court was provided with a booklet of documents, including a large volume of reports and assessments. Background: 8. The Agency received a referral in early 2023 regarding the unborn child, with a case being opened by the social work team. At the time, the case was prioritised as “high” due to concerns around the parents’ poor engagement, previous social work involvement and lack of a support network. 9. The Agency had recorded previous social work involvement with the father relating to older children, one of whom is in the care of the Agency under a care order. 10. A pre-birth case conference was due to be convened in the summer of 2023. However, prior to this taking place, the mother gave birth to the child. Initially, following birth and due to some health concerns, the child was admitted to a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit for observations. 11. A few issues of concern were raised by the Agency in respect of the parents’ ability to care for the child while in the hospital. The Agency applied for, and was subsequently granted, an interim care order by the Court in July 2023. 12. Since the child has come into care, the Agency outlined that they have worked hard and intensely with both parents, who have been undertaking parenting capacity 3 assessments and engaging in supervised access and advocacy services in an attempt to work towards reunification. 13. The case has been marked by challenging relationships between the parents and the professionals, with various allegations and threats made by the parents against social workers and access workers, which has resulted in access being suspended at times. 14. The child has remained in care since the summer of 2023, with the child in the placement of the same foster carers since then. The case has returned to the Court on 37 occasions, concerning applications to extend the interim care order and section 47 applications. 15. On each occasion the application has been contested, with the parents attending court along with their advocates, seeking the return of the child to their care. 16. In their summary document provided to the Court, the Agency outlined the following risk factors which it states exist due to the parents’ own traumatic histories: - Inability to engage with services without conflict; - Lack of insight into parenting difficulties; - Inconsistent attendance at access visits; - Lack of emotional regulation; - Inability to place the child’s needs first. 17. The parents rejected the risks and concerns outlined by the Agency, noting that they felt that insufficient supports were provided to them throughout the process and highlighting that they had never been given the opportunity to care for their child. Care Order Hearing: 18. The Court heard evidence over three days from the following witnesses: (a) Maternity Hospital mid-wife; (b) Access worker; (c) Clinical psychologist; (d) Social worker; (e) Social work team leader; (f) The mother and father; (g) Guardian ad Litem. 19. The Court does not propose to rehearse the evidence given by each of the witnesses at the hearing. The various reports and documents submitted by the Agency were fully and comprehensively responded to by the legal representatives on behalf of the parents. 20. The evidence submitted by the witnesses was further properly and comprehensively interrogated by the legal representatives for both parents. 21. However, the Court does wish to acknowledge that both parents gave evidence and demonstrated courage in outlining some painful experiences from their past in an open and candid manner which must have been very difficult for them. 22. In her evidence the mother outlined her history, including difficult times as a teenager when she was living with her sister, where she found herself in vulnerable situations resulting in her being exploited by older men. 4 23. At the time she was exposed to drink and drugs, but this is now in the past. The Court understands that she was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, commonly known as ADHD, while in school. 24. The father gave evidence stating that he was a child in care himself and that he has struggled with his mental health. He suffered very traumatic childhood experiences, which have had a significant impact on his life. He has also been diagnosed with ADHD. 25. At the conclusion of his evidence, the father acknowledged that he felt he needed to do more therapeutic work on himself, and as the Court understands, he accepted that he is not able to care for the child at the material time. Access: 26. The issue of access and the ongoing problems that have arisen during access visits have been central issues in this case since the child was placed in care. 27. The issues have centred around the parents attending access visits consistently, taking feedback from professionals and complaints made against the workers supervising access visits. 28. Access has taken place in a supervised access centre since the child came into care, initially taking place three times a week, however this has now reduced to once a month. 29. It is acknowledged that the parents must travel a long distance for access visits, but the Agency highlighted that they have made every effort to assist the parents and make the visits accessible to them. 30. This has included the purchase of bus tickets, booking hotels for the parents when access visits were early in the day, changing times to suit the parents schedule and holding joint access visits to improve attendance. 31. In January 2025 funding was provided to allow the parents’ advocates to attend access visits to support the parents in planning access prior to the visit and holding feedback meetings following each access visit to address any issues which might arise. 32. The father made several allegations against the access workers who supervised the access visits. The Court understands that each allegation was investigated, including one referral to An Garda Síochána, and that no evidence was found to support any of the allegations made. 33. Unfortunately, when the allegations were made access was put on hold. Access is currently still suspended at this time, with neither parent seeing the child since the late summer/autumn of 2025. Parental Capacity Assessment: 34. Both parents completed a parental capacity assessment with a clinical psychologist in late 2024. 35. The assessment concluded that both parents’ cognitive functioning falls within the borderline or extremely low range. 36. Several recommendations were made in terms of working towards a potential reunification with the child, including a particular recommendation that both parents 5 engage with services for a sustained period before any reunification plan is put in place. 37. The assessment recommended that the parents attend a therapist to provide psychotherapeutic intervention, parenting courses and supported access sessions. This would include the therapist providing feedback to help develop the quality of access and parental insight into areas that could improve access. 38. A timeline was further suggested by the psychologist to review the parents’ engagement with these recommendations and to look at increased opportunities around access visits. 39. Initial feedback meetings took place with the intention that the parents and the psychologist would go through the assessment and the report. While some progress on the recommendations has been made, unfortunately and for various reasons outlined in detail at the hearing, that progress has been slow. 40. A further meeting took place in late 2025, one year after the assessment report was completed, at which time the psychologist indicated that insufficient progress had been made by the parents to warrant a review of the report. The Childs view: 41. Due to the child’s young age, she is obviously not able to express her views or wishes on the application before the Court. 42. The Court heard evidence from the court-appointed Guardian ad Litem who noted that she is a “fantastic little girl” and “clever and curious”. She “loves to play music and reading”. The child is attending crèche and plays well with other children of her own age. 43. The Guardian ad Litem has visited the child in her placement on 14 occasions, and the child has remained in the same foster placement since her admission to care. The carers are supported by a fostering link worker. 44. The child’s care plan has been updated, and it notes that the carers are committed to continue to provide her with long term care if needed. Section 18 (1) Childcare Act 1991: 45. Section 18 of the act provides: “(1) Where, on the application of Child and Family Agency with respect to a child, the court is satisfied that— (a) the child has been or is being assaulted, ill-treated, neglected or sexually abused, or (b) the child’s health, development or welfare has been or is being avoidably impaired or neglected, or (c) the child’s health, development or welfare is likely to be avoidably impaired or neglected, and that the child requires care or protection which he is unlikely to receive unless the court makes an order under this section, the court may make an order (in this Act referred to as a “care order”) in respect of the child.” 6 46. The Agency is seeking a full care order to the age of 18 years. The burden of proof in this application rests with the Agency. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. 47. The Court has to be satisfied that the Agency has proved, on the balance of probabilities, that it is necessary for the child to remain in care and that a full care order to the age of majority is a proportionate and necessary response to secure the welfare of the child, and that the child requires care and protection which the child is unlikely to receive unless the Court makes a care order. 48. These are the matters which guide the Court in reaching a determination, while also having regard to the constitutional presumption that the best interests of the child are to be found within the family unit and that presumption must permeate the adjudication process. 49. Article 42(a) of the Constitution is clear that any interference with a parent’s constitutional rights must be an exceptional measure which is justified by reason of the safety and welfare of the child and then only in accordance with the law. Section 24 Childcare Act 1991: 50. The Court has also considered the requirements of section 24 of the Act, as amended, to regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration in these proceedings. 51. In determining what is in the best interest of the child, the Court has had regard to the factors or circumstances it considers relevant, as set out in section 24(2) paragraphs (a-g) as follows: “—(1) In any proceedings before a court under this Act in relation to the care and protection of a child, including proceedings before the High Court under Part IVA in relation to special care, the court shall regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration in the resolution of such proceedings. (2) In determining for the purposes of subsection (1) what is in the best interests of the child, the court shall have regard to all of the factors or circumstances that it considers relevant to the child including— (a) the child’s age, maturity and any special characteristics of the child, (b) the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with his or her parents and with any other relatives and persons who are involved in the child’s upbringing, (c) the views of the child where he or she is capable of forming, and has chosen to express, such views, (d) the physical, psychological and emotional needs of the child, (e) the social, intellectual and educational needs of the child, (f) the religious, spiritual, cultural and linguistic upbringing and needs of the child, and 7 (g) any harm which the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering, including harm as a result of household violence, and the protection of the child’s safety and psychological well-being. (3) In this section, "household violence" has the same meaning as it has in section 31(7) of the Guardianship of Infants Act.” Conclusion: 52. The Court accepts that both parents are extremely vulnerable. They indicated throughout the court hearing that they feel they have not been adequately supported by the social work department since their child was born. 53. The mother has no previous involvement with the Agency. She is a victim of past abuse and stated she requires supports and time to establish her relationship with the child. 54. The mother is willing to undergo a disability assessment which would be helpful and might assist in her future engagement with professionals. 55. The father has suffered from serious harm in the past and accepts that he requires further time to work with the recommended therapeutic services. 56. Indeed, both parents have indicated their willingness to re-engage with therapy and have recently commenced attending those services, which is positive. 57. The Court accepts that alcohol and substance abuse is not an issue in the case. The parents further strongly deny any allegations of domestic abuse or coercion in their relationship. 58. The parents are currently living in supported accommodation and accept that they do not have their own place to live, but they are a high priority on the housing list. 59. All professionals agree that the parents clearly love their child and want her to be placed into their care. 60. Unfortunately, many of the concerns that existed when the child was placed in care remain and have not yet been adequately addressed. 61. The case has been marked by very challenging relationships between the parents and the professionals, with unfounded allegations and threats having been made against social workers and access workers. 62. The Court appreciates that the parents have found this process very difficult. Regrettably, the reports outline repeated and concerning threats of harm against social workers. 63. The Court views any such threat, whatever the circumstances, as unacceptable. The professionals in this case are hardworking, committed and dedicated. 64. The Court accepts that the Agency has provided supports to the parents to facilitate their attendance at access visits including transport, hotels, funding for advocates to attend and regular access reviews. 65. However, there has been a pattern of missed access visits, late cancellations and access suspended on occasions due to concerns around parental behaviour. 66. This has undermined the ability and opportunity for the parents to establish a stable and secure relationship with the child and, similarly, for the child to establish a bond with the parents. 8 67. Access is currently suspended, and neither mother nor father has seen the child for between six & nine months respectively, and following several unfounded allegations against access workers, the access centre is no longer able to supervise access visits. 68. The professionals, including the Guardian ad Litem who has observed access visits, all agree that the parents have more work to do in terms of being able to demonstrate a commitment and understanding for safe and meaningful access to occur. 69. It would appear the starting point to progress is for the parents to be able to work with professionals by planning access visits together for positive, enjoyable visits with their child. 70. The parents will also need to continue to work on their own traumatic past and this may be easier without having the pressures or stresses of attending court every month. 71. The recommendations outlined in the assessment from the clinical psychologist provide a road map of what is required to progress toward any reunification. 72. The therapeutic services suggested for both parents will need to be undertaken at their own pace and for a sustained period. 73. Taking all of this into consideration, the Court is of the opinion that the parents are not currently in a position to care for their child. Court Decision: 74. Therefore based on the evidence adduced to the Court, the Court accordingly concludes that on the balance of probabilities, the threshold for a care order under section 18(1)(c) of the 1991 Act has been met in respect of this child and that the child’s health, development or welfare is likely to be avoidably impaired or neglected were the child to be placed in the care of the parents at this time. 75. The child further requires the care or protection which she is unlikely to receive unless the Court makes an order under this section. 76. The remaining issue for the Court to decide is the duration of the care order. The Agency, supported by the Guardian ad Litem, is seeking an order until the child has attained 18 years of age to ensure the child has long term stability, certainty and security. 77. The parents want the child returned to their care as soon as possible, despite the father acknowledging during the hearing that he needed more time to engage with his therapy but supported the idea of the child being placed with the mother. 78. It is submitted on behalf of the parents that they require support, patience and time to establish themselves as parents. They are asking for the supports to be available to allow them to be better parents for the child. 79. Unfortunately, from the evidence and reports the Court has read, it seems that the parents have not yet demonstrated a willingness or ability to engage in a meaningful way with professionals to take on board guidance or feedback. 80. This is a difficult decision for the Court to make, and it is hard to assess, given the evidence and current circumstances in the case, a realistic or potential timeframe as to when the parents maybe in a position to care for their child. 81. The absence of consistent attendance at access visits by both parents has been a central issue in the case from the outset. It is unclear at this point when access will resume. 9 82. Unless the parents are willing to engage with professionals in a more positive manner and they are open to take on board advice, feedback and support, it is difficult to see how progress can be made. 83. The child is settled in her foster placement where she has been since her admission to care over two and a half years ago. The foster carers are available to care for her on a long-term basis. 84. The Court has had regard to section 24 of the Act, requiring the Court to regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration The Court is satisfied that the child’s needs are likely to be met in a consistent way in the foster placement where she is loved, in a safe environment and being cared for. 85. The Court has carefully considered all the evidence submitted in this case and the submissions made by all parties. 86. The Court is satisfied on such evidence that a full care order is necessary and proportionate and should be granted until the child reaches 18 years of age. 87. The Court appreciates that the parents will be very upset at this decision, but the court believes that if they can re-engage with the professionals and work towards re- establishing access with their child that positive progress can be achieved in this case. 88. The Court is going to list the matter for review in six months to assess the position of the child and parents and, in particular, the issue of access and the parents’ engagement with the therapeutic services. 89. It is also always open to them to apply under section 22 of the Act to discharge the order. The Agency is also obliged to consider reunification at the statutory child in care reviews. Section 47 Directions: 90. Under section 47, the Court directs that the Agency is to re-enter the case before the Court if: (a) The child becomes unallocated to a social worker for a period of four weeks; (b) The case becomes unallocated to a fostering social worker for a period of four weeks; (c) The child’s foster placement breaks down or if there is a move of placement; (d) The child’s statutory child in care reviews do not take place or if the child is not visited by a social worker within the required statutory care planning regulations timeframe. (e) The child’s current placement is not matched as their long term placement by the 30th of September 2026. 91. In addition, the Court further directs: (a) The current Guardian ad Litem should be re-appointed to the case six weeks in advance of the care order review; (b) If the current court-appointed Guardian ad Litem is not reappointed, the case is to be re-entered before the Court; (c) The Agency should provide the parents with all necessary supports, including the assistance of their advocates, to allow them to engage with professionals and work towards re-establishing access with the child. 10 (d) The case will return to Court for Aftercare planning and review on the date provided in the care order. 92. In terms of any reporting of this case nothing is to be reported or broadcast which would lead members of the public to identify the child or any of the parties involved in the Child Care proceedings as stipulated by the Courts and Civil Law Act. Conor Fottrell. Judge of the District Court. 11th March 2026.